2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

As common questions of law are involved and require adjudication in these two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.2713 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.2722 of 2009 so these are being decided through this single order.

2. The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of record are that the petitioners, who are serving as Lecturers in different Government Colleges for Women at Rawalpindi, were recruited on contract basis in two batches in 1998 and 1999. It is stated that applications were invited by advertising the posts of different categories (PS-l6 to BS-19) in 8 newly established colleges in Rawalpindi. They submitted the applications and were interviewed by a Committee headed by the Additional Secretary (Establishment) Government of the Punjab, Higher Education as its Chairman and Director of Education (Colleges) Rawalpindi Division, Representatives of the Health and Social Welfare Departments, Representative of the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division and Subject Specialists as its Members and were selected purely on merits. It is contended that from the date of their appointment, their tenures of contract services were extended from time to time but they were not regularized despite rendering long service spreading over a period of more than 10 years and during this period the appointments on regular basis and also on contract basis were made through Public Service Commission. It is contended that the pay package of the employees recruited through Public Service Commission were converted into corresponding pay scale but the petitioners were not even given this benefit. It was urged that they are performing the duties against the permanent vacancies, possess the requisite qualifications and have rendered valuable services in legitimate expectation of regularization of their services. It is urged that refusal to regularize their services is in violation of fundamental rights of equal treatment because many other employees of different departments placed in similar conditions have been regularized.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners after reiterating the above contentions has vehemently urged that vide Notification No.SO(CE-II)1-16/2010 dated 5th July 2010, the Male Lecturers and vide Notification No.SO(CE-III)61-18/2010(18) dated 7th July 2010, the Female Lecturers recruited on contract basis were regularized but the petitioners are being treated discriminately although they were also selected on merits through a duly constituted Committee under the rules. In support of the contentions, reliance is placed on PLD 1965 SC 208, 2010 SCMR 731, PLD 1970 Quetta 115, PLD 2005 SC 100, PLD 2004 (sic) SCMR 1077 and un reported judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Writ Petition No.2324 of 2009.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioners were recruited purely on contract basis and the contract employment does not confer any right of regularization. It is contended that they accepted the appointment letters wherein it was specifically mentioned that this appointment will not confer any right of regular appointment against the same posts nor the services would be counted towards seniority and that they would also not claim regularization. It is contended that the petitioners had ample opportunities to appear before the Punjab Public Service Commission but they did not avail of the same and as such they cannot claim that they have not been equally treated with lecturers, who were appointed on contract basis through Public Service Commission and were subsequently regularized.

5. The copy of the summary submitted to the Chief Executive of the Province shows that the proposal to constitute a Committee for recruitment of 104 lecturers in addition to other posts in 8 newly established colleges was accorded approval. Admittedly it was in pursuance of this approval, the Committee was formed. The petitioners submitted applications along with others in response to the advertisement given in different newspapers. They went through the selection process and were selected on merits. The mere fact that they were not recruited through the Public Service Commission at the relevant time would not preclude them from regularization of their services. Under Rule 4(1)(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the Government is fully empowered to constitute a Selection Committee or Selection Board as the case may be for making initial recruitments. The Government is also vested with the powers to make recruitments to the posts in BS-16 and above as may be specified to be filled without reference to the Service Commission under Rule 5 of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978 and may entrust the functions of the Commission to the Selection Committee or the Selection Board. In this case, a High Powered Selection Committee was formed which was headed by the Additional Secretary (Establishment), Government of the Punjab, Higher Education as its Chairman and Director of Education (Colleges) Rawalpindi Division, Representatives of the Health and Social Welfare Departments, Representatives of the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division and Subject Specialists as its Members. The petitioners underwent the prescribed procedure and were selected on merits. In these circumstances, their selection was quite legal notwithstanding the fact that they were not recruited through Public Service Commission. The Notification No.S.O(CE-II)1-16/2010 dated 5th July, 2010 and Notification No.SO(CE-III)61-18/2010(18) dated 7th July, 2010 show that Male and Female Lecturers recruited through the Public Service Commission have been regularized. The selection of the petitioners was not made arbitrarily or at the whims of any individual rather they were also selected on merits after competing with the rival candidates. They have been serving the department from 1998-1999. They have given most valuable periods of their lives to the Government. By now almost all of them have become overage and cannot seek employment elsewhere. They have been denied the right of equal treatment as their colleagues placed in similar conditions have been extended the benefit of regularization, which is not permissible in view of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The contention that they were not selected through Public Service Commission and were recruited through the Committee is not a lawful ground to turn down their persistent and repeated requests for regularization.

6. For the reasons supra, both the writ petitions are accepted and the respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners with immediate effect within a period of two months. HBT/R-17/L Petition accepted.